Deckard Canine wrote:I think Mary was about 14 when she got pregnant, and she would have been married before then. But calling Joseph a pedophile is pushing it. After all, tradition holds that...

Actually, she got pregnant before the wedding and this was cause for concern by Joseph since he knew he wasn't the father. I don't mind pointed references to tradition but you should at least get the tradition right. Unless you're trying to make fun of the monophysite christians (hint, there aren't that many around and haven't been for centuries) your argument is misplaced. The biggest effect the monophysites left behind them was... Islam.

RHJunior wrote:You see a Muslim rioting in the street, or hear him screaming "death to the Jew pig," or watch him dress his son up as a suicide bomber, or see him take a plane hostage--- don't insult the intelligence of those around you by pretending he isn't a Muslim.

There's a difference between Benedict XVI and Jack Chick. It's appropriate to call both christians but both would be insulted by failing to differentiate between the two. But religions do cleave. Christians used to pray in jewish synagogues after all. The traditional muslim prohibition on suicide as well as other doctrinal points are so different in the explode-a-dope brigade that it's a real question if some of those people are following Islam or there's a split going on.

The guy screaming about jews is a muslim. The guy who sends people to blow themselves up volunarily in violation of the muslim prohibition on suicide, who makes up novel theologies in favor of voluntary suicide by semtex not so much. You really should see some of the creepy stuff the palestinians do with the smears of blood and flesh of a 'shaheed'.

Again, it's not that you're not identifying something real out there. It's your failure to discriminate and distinguish appropriately which makes you critique unjust and ultimately unchristian.

Yes, indeed I do. But i dont think that Jesus was born to a virgin (as in, without sex or male human sperm - the english word eludes me atm), nor that budda had the sun shining from his butt or anything like that.

All our wise men (and women, should there be some mentioned) had flaws, and even if it was that they where just that - men. There is something about us that doesnt accept that the great idea of "The world would be a better place if we where a bit nicer to eachother" could have been said by someone who wasnt the direct son of god. The shepherds wherent just glad the mother survived childbirth, no - they HAD to be praying and cheering to god upon seeing their savior (and probably proceeded to bother their sheep the other day again). No, we have to spin some hard to believe myths around him. God knows why. And he aint telling...

Getting back on topic for a second, I'm not longer that adamant against the idea of letting Iran and Libya help out in Irak. While there is the worrying thought of letting the Fox in the Henhouse nagging at me, I also keep in mind the old proverb "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer still."

Actually, often even then, this person is not a true Muslim. The Qur'an states that non-believers are there as a test of faith, and that a Muslim should not hate them, but rather help and be kind to them despite their differences. It doesn't even suggest converting them, just being nice.

As I've stated all over, these people are not Muslims in any true sense of the word, and have perverted Islam into new words for their own use. It's like the people claiming Divine Right or that those killing Hindu's in India are Christian because they can suggest a few insignificant pieces of scripture that could possibly support their cause, as, on the whole, Christandom is all about kindness.

And RH, if you suggest that the equipment is paid for indirectly by Muslims (Likely other extremists), isn't that the equivalent of saying EVERYONE is responsible for this? Follow my logic. It starts with you buying a loaf of bread. Then, the baker takes that money and spends it on some Arabian Take-out food. Then, the Muslim owner of that restaurant gives that, and more, money to his Mosque as a donation. Then, the corrupt leader of that Mosque hands that money over unknowingly to a front for the PLQ posing as a charity trying to help refugees on both sides of the conflict in Israel, who then spend the money on explosives to make more casualties.

Now, this may seem convoluted here, but what's the difference between you paying for the bread or the Muslim donating the money in the Mosque? You both had no clue the money would fund terrorist activities, but it did in the end. Aren't you both guilty? Or what of the head of the Mosque (I am unsure of the name of the Muslim equivalent of a Preacher), who thought his money was going to charity? Is he guilty of it too? Because if so, he's as guilty as you as well.

The end result is that most terrorist money comes from three things:

-Drugs
-Fake Charities
-Reselling old weapons

A fourth category could be added to suggest they get money from dead suicide bombers but of that I am unsure. Either way, most people who contribute to Terrorism are unaware of it in the first place, as the majority of their money comes from the first two. While doing drugs is obviously stupid, no-one knows if the money goes to Columbia or Afghanistan, and believe it or not, the larger part of their money comes from donations to front charities they create.

And I'd like to point out that the suicide bombers and terrorists are usually poorly eductated, taught by extremists, and suffer pretty harsh lives. The opportunity to fight back is an enticing one at the very least. Keep in mind these people have little grasp on the knowledge of the world and live in crummy villages mostly. Imagine if you woke up one day and you had no electricity, no running water, no heat, and in the streets there were Iranian Soldiers with AK's patrolling that couldn't speak english. I'd be pretty certain you'd run and grab your gun, wouldn't you? These people don't see the US as liberators, they see it as an invading army, and they will turn to anyone who offers them a chance to do something.

I think I'm rambling now. So to sum it up, Muslims aren't the cause of violence, extreme poverty and ignorance are.

I'm in partial agreement with you, Axelgear.. While I do believe Jihadists like Al Qaeda are horrible in using their religion as an excuse for violence, I do think they honestly believe that they are following their faith as it should be, and accurately quote the parts of their holy book that supports their actions, and thus they are true believers in a sense.

...Much as today there are Christians who use their religion as an excuse for Homophobic violence, and can quote the parts of their holy book that supports their actions, and thus are true believers in a sense.

It's sad, but true.. Being Religious doesn't automatically make you a good person. It's what actions you take as part of your faith that make you good or bad.

In fact, I think that's the point of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. After all, how many people today remember that Samaritans are actually an ethnic group that in Jesus' times, had an antagonistic relationship with the Israelites. So the point of the Parable is that it doesn't matter what "club" you belong to. It's your actions that count in God's eye.

RHJunior wrote:Actually, the major terrorist leaders tend to come from very wealthy and well educated families.

Yes, leaders, not the suicide bombers and people actually going to the forefront.

To them the religion they claim to follow is just a tool to be used to gain power (atleast to most, and rest are most likely deluded/insane, so they would be a danger to others no matter the religion).

RHJunior wrote:Actually, the major terrorist leaders tend to come from very wealthy and well educated families.

Yes, leaders, not the suicide bombers and people actually going to the forefront.

To them the religion they claim to follow is just a tool to be used to gain power (atleast to most, and rest are most likely deluded/insane, so they would be a danger to others no matter the religion).

Yeah, the actual terrorists being sent to their deaths tend to come from poor families, while the privileged-born leaders stay behind to lead...

1. The "new fighting codex of the Taliban" was published in a Swiss daily; forgive me if that seems just the tiniest bit suspicious. Until there's a provenance, I'm classing it with the Area 51 security manual.

2. Most historians conclude, from the limited evidence, that Mary was 13 when she gave birth to Jesus.

Wanderwolf wrote:Just minor notes, since I agree with the general opinion this once:

1. The "new fighting codex of the Taliban" was published in a Swiss daily; forgive me if that seems just the tiniest bit suspicious. Until there's a provenance, I'm classing it with the Area 51 security manual.

Yes, the Paper is called "Die Weltwoche" and the Articel is to be found here, but since it is written in german, and this forum is english, i googled for a english translation. You are right, everything you read on the web has to be taken with a grain of salt, but the "Die Weltwoche" had some of their journalists abducted by taliban (not aliens, ha-ha) - those guys are "really there". Plus, the "Die Weltwoche" isnt a boulevard paper, so it wouldnt dare to fake up a Taliban Document to fill a few pages.

But there is an ultimative way to find out if the document is real or fake: According to the "Die Weltwoche" Journalists, the Taliban leaders want every Taliban fighter to carry a copy of this with them. Sooner or later one of those that carry one gets shot - take the document, verify it. I am afraid there isnt another way to proove it (Not that i mind the shooting of Taliban, but i'd rather know sooner)

Yes, indeed I do. But i dont think that Jesus was born to a virgin (as in, without sex or male human sperm - the english word eludes me atm), nor that budda had the sun shining from his butt or anything like that.

All our wise men (and women, should there be some mentioned) had flaws, and even if it was that they where just that - men. There is something about us that doesnt accept that the great idea of "The world would be a better place if we where a bit nicer to eachother" could have been said by someone who wasnt the direct son of god. The shepherds wherent just glad the mother survived childbirth, no - they HAD to be praying and cheering to god upon seeing their savior (and probably proceeded to bother their sheep the other day again). No, we have to spin some hard to believe myths around him. God knows why. And he aint telling...

Jesus' teaching wasn't that "The world would be a better place if we where[sic] a bit nicer to eachother[sic]". Whipping the money changers from the Temple was not "nice". Turn the other cheek (once you understand it in its proper cultural context) is nonviolent resistence, again not "nice". Saying that you should carry weapons is not "nice". Saying the poor will always be with you is not "nice".

There's a lot of love in Jesus' message, after all, God is love. "Nice" on the other hand is something different.

Actually, often even then, this person is not a true Muslim. The Qur'an states that non-believers are there as a test of faith, and that a Muslim should not hate them, but rather help and be kind to them despite their differences. It doesn't even suggest converting them, just being nice.

As I've stated all over, these people are not Muslims in any true sense of the word, and have perverted Islam into new words for their own use. It's like the people claiming Divine Right or that those killing Hindu's in India are Christian because they can suggest a few insignificant pieces of scripture that could possibly support their cause, as, on the whole, Christandom is all about kindness.

You do realize you're supporting my position, right? I won't delve into the details of the question (it's more complex than you might think and a lot depends on whether "jews" is to be taken literally or as a shorthand for "those godless socialist zionists who stole our land") if you realize you're supporting me.

You should read the socioeconomic background of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. They, and a great many other terrorists, do not fit that stereotype. It's not that poverty in islam is OK. Rather I think it's less predictive than you would think.

hmmm, lot of links, all from one website.
There are lot of "not nice" parts in Quran, and in Islam, so is in the Bible, and in christianity.
This website proves nothing, except that you can take anything out of context if you want.

The main difference between the christian acts, and muslim acts noted, is the time, christians did horrible, unhumane things in the past, some Muslims are doing them now.

Being a Muslim, or believing in Allah (God) is not the cause of these acts, altough it is used as such by both sides, the causes are varied, both siciological, and economical, that the most terrorist acts today are done by Muslims is not because Islam is a "Religion of Evil" as some have tried to paint it as such, the fact that most terrorists (atleast terrorists that get publicity in the western media) follow Islam, is merely a coincidence caused by the situation in the middle east and that middle east is heavily populated by followers of Islam.